END OF WORK?

Deuze’s reading “Liquid Life” really made me think about where this exponential increase of digital media and communication technology consumption is taking us. I can see his point about the convergence of work and leisure in that most people use the same technology for both, but I personally can’t see it going further than that. My current leisure time is nothing like Deuze describes. I do like his idea about the “boundaryless career” (2006 pg7) though. I like that people are diverting away from the “one career for life” mindset and spreading themselves over different areas of expertise. I for one can’t do the same thing for a long period of time without losing my mind.  Deuze referred to Jeremy Rifkin when describing the rapidly changing “runaway world” and the possibility of the of work all together (2006 pg 4). The idea of the “end of work” stood out in my mind so I had to look into it. I found his book “The End of Work”, didn’t want to buy it, so just got the jist. In 1995, Rifkin contended that worldwide unemployment would increase as information technology eliminates tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. Only a small number of elite corporate managers and knowledge workers will reap the benefits of the high-tech world economy. If this is to be true, I’m glad to be studying what I’m studying.

References

Deuze, M. 'Liquid Life, Convergence Culture, and Media Work'. [URL: https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/3343/Liquid%20Life%20Deuze%202006.pdf]

Image Sourced from: http://healthy-lifestyle.most-effective-solution.com

NEW VS. OLD

Week 3’s readings were two different approaches to discussing the importance of the rise of digital technology. John Perry Barlow’s piece “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” reads like a letter to the “Governments of the Industrial World”, explaining that they are not welcome among us; the digital generation. I can appreciate the bluntness of this opening statement. Cyberspace should be free of governmental rules and regulations. I interpret this reading as being directed at all captains of industry afraid of the changes these advances in technology will bring. I like how Barlow put it: “You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants” (1996). This declaration basically informs our technically illiterate leaders that we have created our own world free of their control. “In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires your factories to accomplish” (Barlow, J 1996). What I find really amazing is that Barlow wrote this in 1996. His words still have an impact 15 years on; granted the people this piece is aimed at have since realized how right he is and made the effort to join the digital age.

While Barlow’s reading was a sort of a screw you to less-than-tech-savvy people of the world, Kevin Kelly’s introduction to “New Rules for the New Economy” provides important information and guidelines for them to adapt to the new digital world. Kelly compares the new “soft world” to the old ways of the “hard world”. “If you want to envision where the future of your industry will be, imagine it as a business built entirely around the soft, even if at this point you see it based in the hard” (Kelly, K 1999). I found it interesting to read about the times when General Motors was the biggest company in world and everyone believed that in the future, every company would be like GM. Since then, GM have crumbled and companies like Microsoft, (and more recently) Google and Facebook have prevailed. Kelly refers to the internet as the business hero of this moment (1996) and answers a pretty important question - “Why is it so much more important than its recent predecessors?” He gives what I believe to be a bold and very true answer – “Communication—which in the end is what the digital technology and media are all about—is not just a sector of the economy. Communication is the economy” (1999). 

References

Kelly, K. (1999) 'This new economy'. In New Rules for the new Economy. [URL: http://www.kk.org/newrules/newrules-intro.html]

Barlow, J.P. (1996) A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace [URL: https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html]

Image sourced from: tantihnchern.blogspot.com

WORMS

When reading Lessig’s piece “Four Puzzles from Cyber Space”, 1 puzzle stood out for me over the rest. The section was called “Worms that sniff” and explored the ethical and constitutional effects of technology and in particular, advanced software such as Worms. A “Worm” (as it is defined in the reading) is a bit of computer code that is spit out on the Net and works its way into the systems of vulnerable computers (Lessig, L, 2006 pp15).

Lessig’s hypothetical scenario is as follows;

“Imagine a worm designed to do good (at least in the minds of some). Imagine that the code writer is the FBI and that the FBI is looking for a particular document belonging to the National Security Agency (NSA). Suppose that this document is classified and illegal to possess without the proper clearance. Imagine that the worm propagates itself on the Net, finding its way onto hard disks wherever it can. Once on a computer’s hard disk, it scans the entire disk. If it finds the NSA document, it sends a message back to the FBI saying as much. If it doesn’t, it erases itself. Finally, assume that it can do all this without “interfering” with the operation of the machine. No one would know it was there; it would report back nothing except that the NSA document was on the hard disk”

Is this an unconstitutional worm? (2006, pp15)    

While Lessig has arguments for both for and against, I don’t believe this worm to be unconstitutional. Their Fourth Amendment was put in place so that only people of interest or suspicion were to be searched (Lessig, L, 2006 pp16). While the worm did break the amendment in this respect, changes should be made to keep up with changing technologies. The Fourth Amendment was introduced to control the searching of houses; to protect the innocent from having the houses and possessions destroyed for no reason.

The Worm in Lessig’s scenario is a piece of code and can only see what it is looking for. And perhaps more importantly, unlike the general search, the worm learns little and leaves no damage after it’s finished: The code can’t read private letters; it doesn’t break down doors; it doesn’t interfere with ordinary life. And the innocent have nothing to fear (2006, pp17)

Their Fourth Amendment doesn’t distinguish between the different types of searches because the technology wasn’t around when it was written. Lessig makes a good point in saying “You couldn’t—technically—have a perfectly burdenless generalized search in 1791” (2006, pp18)

Maybe they have amended their constitution since this piece was written. I they haven’t, they should definitely consider it. Sacrificing a small piece of privacy could prevent disasters down the road.

References

Lessig, L. (2006). Four puzzles from cyber space. In L. Lessig Code version 2.0 (pp 9-30). New York: Basic Books. [URL: https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/four_puzzles_from_cyberspace]

Image Sourced from: www.winkwisdomblog.com